Common Laws vs. Written Laws

Attribute	Common Laws	Written Laws
Origin	Developed through judicial decisions and precedents	Enacted by a legislative body
Flexibility	More flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances	Less flexible, requires formal amendment process
Enforcement	Enforced by judges based on interpretation	Enforced by law enforcement agencies
Specificity	Less specific and more general in nature	More specific and detailed
Consistency	May vary between different jurisdictions	Uniform application across a jurisdiction

Introduction

Legal systems around the world are typically based on either common law or written law principles. Common law is a system of law based on judicial decisions and precedents, while written law is a system of law based on statutes and codes. Both systems have their own unique attributes and characteristics that shape the legal landscape in different ways.

Origin and Development

Common law originated in England and was developed through judicial decisions made by courts over centuries. It is based on the principle of stare decisis, which means that courts are bound to follow the decisions of higher courts in similar cases. Written law, on the other hand, is codified in statutes and codes created by legislative bodies. It is typically found in civil law systems, where laws are written down and applied to specific situations.

Flexibility and Adaptability

One of the key attributes of common law is its flexibility and adaptability. Because it is based on judicial decisions, common law can evolve over time to reflect changing societal norms and values. Courts have the ability to interpret and apply the law in a way that is relevant to contemporary issues. Written law, on the other hand, can be more rigid and less adaptable. Changes to statutes and codes require legislative action, which can be a lengthy and complex process.

Precedent and Authority

In a common law system, precedent plays a crucial role in shaping the law. Courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts in similar cases, creating a hierarchy of authority. This system of precedent provides consistency and predictability in the law. Written law, on the other hand, relies on the authority of statutes and codes created by legislative bodies. These laws are considered the ultimate authority and must be followed by courts and individuals.

Interpretation and Application

Common law relies on the interpretation and application of legal principles by judges. Courts have the authority to interpret statutes and apply them to specific cases, often relying on precedent to guide their decisions. This process of interpretation can lead to varying outcomes in similar cases. Written law, on the other hand, is typically more straightforward in its interpretation and application. Statutes and codes provide clear guidelines for courts to follow, reducing the potential for ambiguity.

Consistency and Certainty

One of the criticisms of common law is that it can lead to inconsistency and uncertainty in the law. Because decisions are based on judicial interpretation, outcomes can vary depending on the judge and the specific circumstances of the case. Written law, on the other hand, provides a level of consistency and certainty in the law. Statutes and codes are clear and unambiguous, making it easier for individuals to understand their rights and obligations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, common law and written law are two distinct legal systems with their own unique attributes and characteristics. Common law is based on judicial decisions and precedents, providing flexibility and adaptability in the law. Written law, on the other hand, is codified in statutes and codes, offering consistency and certainty. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them often depends on the legal traditions and values of a particular jurisdiction.